Anonymous wrote:The question was about economic disparity between races in the ward.
Goulet went first and immediately equated persona of color in Ward 3 with voucher recipients. The racial disparity in the ward is because voucher recipients don’t have enough support services from the city.
The other candidates immediately castigated him for assuming all persons of color in the ward are voucher recipients.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Assuming that he said something that offended most of the other candidates and assuming that the Chamber is not going to release the video, those candidates could put out a sworn statement describing his comments.
I do wonder, though, whether this coming out (by video or a sworn statement) would benefit any of the progressive candidates. Any publicity is good publicity and there are enough reactionary elements in the ward that the controversy could win Goulet votes. And if his supporters did desert him, they are going to another moderate (Frumin?) and thereby will consolidate the moderate vote, which is the last thing the progressive candidates need given that they will split that vote four ways or whatever.
The Chamber may be unintentionally doing the progressive candidates a favor by keeping the video under wraps.
It was discussed on twitter at the time and after, you can do a search.
Anonymous wrote:Assuming that he said something that offended most of the other candidates and assuming that the Chamber is not going to release the video, those candidates could put out a sworn statement describing his comments.
I do wonder, though, whether this coming out (by video or a sworn statement) would benefit any of the progressive candidates. Any publicity is good publicity and there are enough reactionary elements in the ward that the controversy could win Goulet votes. And if his supporters did desert him, they are going to another moderate (Frumin?) and thereby will consolidate the moderate vote, which is the last thing the progressive candidates need given that they will split that vote four ways or whatever.
The Chamber may be unintentionally doing the progressive candidates a favor by keeping the video under wraps.
Anonymous wrote:''Anonymous wrote:The DC Chamber of Commerce hosted a Ward 3 Council candidate forum two weeks ago. The debate was recorded.
During the debate, candidate Eric Ghoulet equated non-white residents of Ward 3 with voucher recipients, indicating that he viewed them as one-and-the-same. Other candidates immediately called him out on it.
Several people including fellow candidates asked the Chamber for the video. They said they would share it.
The Chamber of Commerce now says they won't release the video of the event.
Goulet, not Ghoulet.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Goulet's wife is non-white (Asian) and they have mixed-race children.
Based on statements from Trayon and Goulet I think DC politicians spent so much time around the MAGA politicals that they now openly spout anti-Semitic and racist remarks publicly. This is a council fit for rural Alabama.
Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Goulet's wife is non-white (Asian) and they have mixed-race children.
Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Goulet's wife is non-white (Asian) and they have mixed-race children.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If it's acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC council then why is it problematic to be racist or classist?
It is not acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC Council. Next question?
It absolutely is acceptable both to voters and to Trayon's fellow council members, who did nothing to sanction him.
What practical repercussion is there on a sanction?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If it's acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC council then why is it problematic to be racist or classist?
It is not acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC Council. Next question?
And yet, Trayvon White, who said Jews control the weather (among other heinously anti-Semitic statements) is on the DC Council. Nice attempt to deflect though.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If it's acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC council then why is it problematic to be racist or classist?
It is not acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC Council. Next question?
It absolutely is acceptable both to voters and to Trayon's fellow council members, who did nothing to sanction him.
What practical repercussion is there on a sanction?